Images credit: amybcreative
Were You There? Images from the 2018 Food Safety Consortium
Tag Archives: Focus Article
Outbreak of Salmonella linked to Raw Turkey Products Continues, USDA Facing Pressure to Name Brands
Just in time for Thanksgiving, consumers are worrying about whether the turkey they are buying for the holiday is contaminated with Salmonella. A multistate outbreak of drug-resistant Salmonella linked to raw turkey products has been going on for months, but now USDA is facing increasing pressure to name any associated turkey brands. According to the CDC, “a single, common supplier of raw turkey products or of live turkeys has not been identified.”
As of the agency’s last update (November 5), 164 people across 35 states have been infected with the outbreak stream of Salmonella Reading. 63 people have been hospitalized, and one death has been reported. Three people reported living in households where raw turkey pet food was given to pets.
Thus far the CDC isn’t advising retailers to stop sell raw turkey. It is stresses that consumers should follow the basic food safety steps to prevent Salmonella infections, including proper handwashing, cooking the turkey to the proper temperature (including reheating the meat), keeping food prep areas clean, proper thawing of turkey in the refrigerator and avoiding feeding pets raw food.
CDC states that if the information becomes available, it will provide notification related to the supplier(s) related to the outbreak.
CDC: Quite a Year for Outbreaks, Exciting Time in Food Safety
This year Salmonella outbreaks hit chicken, shell eggs, ground beef, pre-cut melon, dried and frozen coconut, pasta salad, chicken salad, turkey, ground beef, raw sprouts and breakfast cereal. There were also significant Cyclospora infections linked to salads sold at McDonalds as well as vegetable trays. For the first time in 10 years, a Listeria outbreak was linked to an FSIS regulated product (deli ham); ground beef was affected by E. coli O26. And perhaps the most notable outbreak of the year was the E.coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to romaine lettuce from the Yuma growing region.
“It’s been quite a year for outbreaks,” said John Besser, Ph.D., deputy chief, enteric diseases laboratory branch, at CDC, referring to the pathogens that have plagued a variety of consumer products in 2018. “Out of this group, there are a lot of the things you’d expect, but also some brand new unexpected [products affected] like shredded coconut and Honey Smacks cereal.”
Despite the number of outbreaks that have hit the food industry in 2018, “this is a really exciting time to be in public health and food safety, because there are a lot of tools we can use to help make food safer,” said Besser. Most of the diseases that impact the food industry are preventable if their source can be identified, and using big data can have a tremendous impact on improving food safety.
Yesterday John Besser informed attendees at the 2018 Food Safety Consortium about CDC’s latest efforts in foodborne disease surveillance, which he defines as the
systematic collection, analysis and interpretation of health data. The agency is actively working to identify unrecognized gaps in the food supply chain and provide the industry with information it can use to make products safer. “The most important reason for detecting outbreaks is so we can identify the problem and fix it,” said Besser.
There are two ways that CDC detects outbreaks. The first is via the “citizen reporters” who are observant and alert the agency. (This is actually how E.coli O157 was discovered). The second is through pathogen-specific surveillance where CDC takes lab information and links cases that are geographically diverse. These cases are often widely dispersed and are the most effective way to find food production and distribution problems, and are often easier to address than local issues, according to Besser.
He went on to review the successes of PulseNet and the promise of whole genome sequencing (WGS) and metagenomics. The CDC’s PulseNet nationwide WGS implementation project is underway and will result in a “tsunami of data”, with the timeline as follows:
- January 15, 2018: Listeria monocytogenes
- October 15, 2018: Campylobacter jejuni/coli
- January 15, 2019: Diarrheagenic E.coli (including STEC)
- March 15, 2019: Salmonella enterica
Metagenomics will continue to play a large role in enabling unbiased sequencing of all nucleic acids in an environment. It will help to directly characterize sequences from samples, food and people (i.e., the gut), and could aid in pathogen discovery.
“I think within just a few years, it’s going to be the standard for tests,” said Besser. “My prediction is that you’ll be able to do this test in the production environment.”
PCR or LAMP: Food Safety Considerations when Choosing Molecular Detection Methods
Food microbiology pathogen detection technology is constantly evolving and improving for fast, efficient and accurate analysis. Thanks to the wide commercialization of easy-to-use diagnostic kits, the end-user no longer needs a deep understanding of the intricacies of diagnostic chemistries to perform the analysis. However, when navigating the selection process in search of the technology that is best fit-for-purpose, it is critical to understand the key differences in principle of detection and how they can impact both operations and risk. Here, we will explore the difference between two broad categories of molecular pathogen detection: PCR and isothermal technologies such as LAMP.
PCR & LAMP Detection Chemistries: An Overview
PCR detection chemistries have come a long way from non-specific DNA-binding dyes like SYBR Green, to highly precise sequence-specific molecular probes. The efficiency of the real-time PCR reaction today allows for the use of a variety of detection probes, the most popular being Dual-Labeled Fluorescent Probes such as FRET, TaqMan probes, and Molecular Beacon probes.1 The precision of these probes is showcased in their ability to distinguish allelic single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).2,3 The most prevalent isothermal chemistry, Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP), typically does not use molecular probes due to the lack of structure and formation consistency in its amplified products. As a result, LAMP mostly relies on detection through non-specific signal generation like ATP bioluminescence or non-specific dyes. In theory, this could come from specific and non-specific amplification events. This also makes LAMP inept to detect the allelic polymorphisms, which in some cases are critical to detecting crucial variations, like between close species, and within serotypes. In the end, the detection chemistries are only as good as the amplified products.
Key Takeaways:
- PCR technology has improved greatly in detection efficiencies via target specific probes
- LAMP technology typically does not utilize specific molecular probes, but instead relies on indirect signal generation
- Target specific probes ensures signal from specific amplification events only
- Indirect signal can come from specific and non-specific amplification events, which can lead to a reduced specificity and inability to detect in certain cases
PCR & LAMP: Amplification Strategies
Food safety pathogen detection protocols aim to find the single cell of a target organism lurking in a relatively large sample. In order to achieve detection, molecular technologies utilize amplification strategies to increase the concentration of target DNA to a detectable level. Nucleic acid amplifications in both PCR and isothermal technologies start by making a variety of amplified products. These products include non-specific amplifications (NSA), and specific (target) amplifications.4,5,6,7 Ideally, the concentration of the desired target amplified product increases over time to levels above NSA where the detection chemistries are able to provide a detectable signal from the desired amplified product (target). Various reaction components such as: Target DNA concentration, polymerase, buffers and primers play a defining role in maintaining the progressive amplification dynamics, and thereby act as core contributors to the robustness of the reaction. However, none play a more crucial contribution to the success of a reaction than temperature. Herein lies a key difference between the fundamentals of PCR and Isothermal amplification technologies.
Key Takeaways:
- PCR and LAMP both make a variety of amplification products: Non-Specific (NSA) and Specific (target)
- Ideally, target products increase above the levels of NSA to reach a reliable detectable signal
- A variety of factors contribute to the overall robustness of the reaction
What Is the Difference between PCR and Isothermal Detection Technologies?
A key foundational difference between the two technologies lies in the utilization of the thermal profiles. PCR utilizes thermocycling, while isothermal does not. This difference is the tether around how the different amplification chemistries work. In PCR, the cyclical denaturation of DNA during thermocycling separates all dimers (specific and non-specific). As the reaction progresses, this leads to frequent correction of the amplification dynamics away from the NSA and favors amplification of the desired target amplifications. Isothermal chemistries do not have the ability to correct the NSA through thermocycling, so it must rely on alternate mechanisms to achieve the same result. For example, LAMP utilizes “nested” primers where the primer sequences outside the target region are used to create early amplification products. These are subsequently used as a template for the desired target amplifications. The presence of these extra primers, along with the diverse amplified structures formed during the LAMP reaction, creates many more opportunities for NSA production.5,8,9 This causes a less controlled and inefficient amplification, and is perhaps why the preheating of the DNA prior to the LAMP has shown to increase the LAMP sensitivity.10, 11 To the end user, this inefficiency can manifest itself in various ways such as restricted multiplexing, lack of internal amplification control, complex assay design, tedious sample prep methods, and increased chance for inaccurate results (i.e., false positives and false negatives).12 Scientific literature does provide a fair amount of evidence that, under controlled conditions, the isothermal amplification reaction can provide equivalent results to PCR. Isothermal chemistries also usually require simplified instruments and thereby can present interesting opportunities in non-conventional test environments with simple and predictable matrices. This likely explains the early footing of isothermal technologies in the clinical test environment as a “point of care test” (POCT) alternative. However, it must also be noted that recently PCR has also been adapted and successfully commercialized for the POCT format.13,14
Key Takeaways:
- PCR utilizes thermocycling, Isothermal does not
- In PCR, thermocycling allows for the reaction to favor the target amplification over the NSA
- LAMP must rely on alternate mechanisms to correct for NSA and these mechanisms lead to a less controlled and therefore inefficient amplification
- Under controlled conditions, isothermal technology can provide equivalent results to PCR
- Low instrumentation requirements make isothermal technologies interesting for non-conventional test environments (i.e. POCT); however, PCR has also been recently adapted as a POCT
Internal Amplification Controls in Molecular Pathogen Detection Technologies: The Value & The Challenges
The purpose of an internal amplification control (IAC) is to provide an indication of the efficacy of the test reaction chemistry. The closer the IAC is to the target DNA sequence, the better view into the inner workings of each reaction. For food microbiology testing, the role of the IAC is more important now than ever. Driven by regulations, industry self-accountability and brand protection initiatives, more food laboratories are testing diverse product types with novel and innovative formulations and ingredients. IAC capability not only helps with troubleshooting, but it also allows for a more confident adoption of the technology for new and diverse food and environmental matrices.
Over the years, PCR has progressively developed into a robust and efficient technology that can provide a dynamic IAC, giving the end user a direct look into the compatibility of the test matrix within the PCR reaction. From a single reaction, we can now make a qualitative assessment of whether the crude DNA prep from a matrix undergoing testing is working with this PCR or if it is inhibiting the reaction. With legacy technologies, including the older generation PCR’s, we were limited to an “it-did-not-work” scenario, leaving the end user blind to any insights into the reason. Since isothermal chemistries typically do not have an IAC, the end user is vulnerable to false results. Even when isothermal chemistries such as nicking enzyme amplification reaction (NEAR) can provide IAC, they typically do not mimic the target reaction and, therefore, are not a direct indicator of the reaction dynamics. This limits the end user back to the “it-did-not-work” scenario. LAMP technology attempts to mitigate the absence of IAC by performing a separate and external reaction with each test matrix. This strategy leaves the final result vulnerable to a number of factors that are otherwise non-existent for IAC: Sampling variations, reagent and machine anomalies, and user error. External control approaches also have a notable impact to the end user, as the burden to demonstrate fit-for-purpose of the method for even the smallest matrix composition change increases both validation and verification activities, which can have a notable financial impact to the laboratory.
There are a few reasons why IAC incorporation is not always plausible for isothermal technologies such as LAMP. First, inefficient, less-controlled amplification reactions leave little room for reliable and meaningful supplementary reactions, like the ones required for IAC. Second, the lack of consistent amplified products make it much more difficult to pinpoint a DNA structure that can be dependably used as an IAC. Third, lack of specific detection mechanisms makes it hard to distinguish signal from the target versus the IAC reaction.
Key Takeaways:
- Internal amplification controls (IAC) are critical for the food industry due to complex and ever-changing matrix formulations
- IAC is useful for troubleshooting, optimizing assay performance, and adapting test for novel matrices
- PCR has evolved to provide dynamic IAC, leading to increased confidence in results
- LAMP is not able to utilize IAC due to the nature of the amplification products, reaction efficiency, and lack of specific detection mechanisms
Follow the link to page 2 below.
FDA Restaurant Study Finds Employees Not Properly Washing Hands or Keeping Foods to Temp
Yesterday FDA released the initial phase of its findings of a 10-year nationwide study that looks at the relationship between food safety management systems, certified food protection managers, and the occurrence of risk factors and food safety behaviors/practices, and how this contributes to foodborne illness outbreaks in retail establishments. This first phase collected data from 2013–2014; subsequent data collection will be from 2017 and 2021. The entire span of the study is 2013–2023.
The data collected and used in the 84-page “Report on the Occurrence of Foodborne Illness Risk Factors in Fast Food and Full Service Restaurants, 2013-2014” will be used as a baseline to evaluate trends in the occurrence of risk factors during the 2017 and 2021 data collection periods. Key findings in the report include the following:
- Food safety management systems are important!
- Restaurants had the most effective control over ensuring there is no bare hand contact with RTE foods as well as cooking raw animal foods (including meat, poultry and eggs) to the required temperature
- Unsafe food behaviors in fast food and full-service restaurants. Improvement needed in:
- Employee hand washing (knowing when and how to do it)
- Proper temperature control of foods that require refrigeration to limit pathogen growth
Study results will be used to help advise retail food safety initiative and policies, industry partnerships and specific intervention strategies that target foodborne illness risk factors. It will also aid in providing technical assistance to state, local and other regulatory professionals. FDA put together a factsheet with highlights of the study.
Duncan Hines Recalls Cake Mixes After Finding Salmonella
–UPDATE–
“FDA and the CDC informed Conagra Brands that a sample of Duncan Hines Classic White Cake Mix that contained Salmonella Agbeni matched the Salmonella collected from ill persons reported to the CDC. This was determined through Whole Genome Sequencing, a type of DNA analysis. The sample was collected by Oregon health officials. Based on this information, Conagra Brands is working with FDA to proactively conduct a voluntary recall of Duncan Hines cake mixes from the market. The FDA is conducting an inspection at the Conagra Brands-owned manufacturing facility that produced the cake mixes. The FDA is also collecting environmental and product samples.” – FDA, November 7, 2018
–END UPDATE–
After a retail sample tested positive for Salmonella, Duncan Hines issued a recall of four varieties of its cake mixes. The sample that tested positive for the pathogen was the Classic White cake mix, but out of an “abundance of caution”, the company recalled its Classic Butter Golden, Signature Confetti and Classic Yellow cake mixes that were manufactured during the same period of time.
According to a Conagra Brands press release, the FDA and CDC are investigating five occurrences of Salmonella that may be linked to the Duncan Hines cake mix.
“Several of the individuals reported consuming a cake mix at some point prior to becoming ill, and some may have also consumed these products raw and not baked. Consumers are reminded not to consume any raw batter. Cake mixes and batter can be made with ingredients such as eggs or flour which can carry risks of bacteria that are rendered harmless by baking, frying or boiling.” – Conagra Brands
The recalled products have a “Best If Used By Date” ranging from March 7 to March 13, 2019 and were distributed to U.S. retailers as well as exported internationally (on a limited basis). Consumers are advised to return the recalled products to the store in which they were purchased.
Five Steps to Creating a Successful Validation Study
Manufacturing large volumes of food product that must be safe for human consumption with finite resources is, simply put, a demanding responsibility. For many food brands, having dedicated production lines is not always an option, so lines are often shared amongst a variety of food products. A potential problem arises when products containing allergenic foods are manufactured on the same equipment as other products, and those allergenic foods are not meant to be declared in the product label. As a result, residues of the first product manufactured may move to the next product. Known as direct cross-contact contamination, this issue can have a severe adverse impact on allergic consumers.
Cross-contact contamination can occur at various stages of production, but it’s direct food cross-contact in shared production lines that is often found as a particularly significant food safety hazard. Addressing cross-contact through effective cleaning procedures is one of the most critical allergen management activities in establishing preventive controls and minimizing the potential of unintentional presence of food allergens. Allergen cleaning validation enables food manufacturers to evaluate that their cleaning procedure is adequate when it comes to removing ingredients from direct food contact surfaces.
Cleaning validation consists of generating data to demonstrate that allergenic foods are removed from direct food contact areas to a pre-defined acceptable level. A basic cleaning validation design consists of determining the residual level or presence of allergenic food before cleaning (baseline), and then assessing the level of the allergenic food after cleaning.
If the cleaning procedure exists in several steps (i.e., more than one rinse or purge, as with dry cleaning) additional testing to assess the level of allergens between cleaning stages and in the final product can also be incorporated. It is important to remember that a single validation study may not be applicable for an entire site operation. Different production lines within a food production site may require an individualized validation analysis. This determination will depend on the cleaning process as well as the formulation of the products being manufactured.
There are five important considerations for establishing a successful validation study:
- Set up a team and assign a leader to carry out the design of the validation. Involving relevant personnel with knowledge in the product formulation, manufacturing process, equipment design and cleaning and sanitation regimes may provide valuable insight to identify processes that should be included in the validation. It may also bring to light critical sampling points in the equipment that should be considered.
- Determine the scope of the study. This is where you describe and justify which equipment, utensils, cleaning regime and production processes will be validated. It may be wise to group different processes or select the worst-case scenario. For example, you might choose to focus on food production equipment regarded as hard to clean or equipment that contains the highest concentration of the allergenic food.
- Design a sampling plan. This is a critical prerequisite before starting a validation study. The plan should be clearly defined, with critical sampling points and locations prescribed to challenge the effectiveness of the cleaning regime and to find evidence of allergenic food presence. In both open equipment and equipment that will be dismantled as part of the cleaning regime, it is important to select sites where food can get trapped, as well as other sites that are hard to clean. Also consider other surfaces that can be a source of direct cross-contact like protective clothing and utensils. For clean-in-place (CIP) systems, wash water should be collected from the onset of cleaning and then at intervals leading up to the final rinse water. This helps to demonstrate that allergen food levels are diminishing, thereby validating the use of CIP analysis as a verification method. Note that it is important to consider that the sampling plan for the validation should also reflect the sampling plan that will be used during routine verification. Support from a statistician may facilitate the decision to define how many samples and type of samples (swabs, CIP or final product) should be collected for the validation and how many cleaning runs should be performed to demonstrate validity.
- Select a method of analysis. Validation and verification involve the use of a specific method to detect allergenic foods. The selected method should be validated as well, an undertaking most often done by the commercial supplier. Then it should be verified by the food processor that the method is fit for purpose, such that the allergenic food will be recovered and detected under the conditions in which samples are routinely collected. This ensures there will not be interference due to the food itself or due to cleaning chemicals. There are a variety of different analytical methods; most are based in technologies designed to detect proteins. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and immune-based lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer detection of specific protein targets (i.e., egg proteins, milk proteins, peanut proteins) and are ideal for a validation study. ELISA can provide quantitative data from pre-cleaning, at various intervals during the cleaning process, at post-cleaning and at final product, offering a measurable level of the allergenic food during the cleaning process. Rapid detection through LFDs also allows food processors to assess the presence or absence of a specific protein or group of proteins, but different from ELISA, the result is only qualitative. In either case, these rapid tests may be used for both validation and routine verification. In addition, there are non-specific tests that can detect total protein that may be selected for a cleaning validation study. These tests do not provide specific information about the allergen to be managed, and thus may be more suitable for routine verification. During a cleaning validation study, it is important to include the test that will be utilized for verification and ensure it is also fit for purpose and detects the allergenic food to an appropriate pre-defined sensitivity. This is particularly important if the test is different from the analytical method chosen for cleaning validation.
- Establish acceptance criteria. Proteins from allergenic foods may cause an adverse reaction at very low levels. To date, there are very few regions in the world in which threshold or permitted levels for allergens in food are established. Each individual food manufacturer should define a criterion to establish when a surface is clean from allergens after routine cleaning. The limits that are set up should be practical but also measurable and verifiable, thus it is important to define a level with knowledge of the sampling and analytical method selected. The sensitivity of the analytical methods currently available may be used as a criterion to verify that levels of an allergen are under control if they fall below the limit of detection of the analytical method.
Once a cleaning regime has been validated and documented, routine allergen cleaning verification should be performed as part of a monitoring program to demonstrate that the cleaning process in place is effective and that the risk of direct cross-contact is consequently being controlled. The validation should be repeated at defined intervals, often once a year. However, it is expected that a cleaning verification will be performed after each production run and cleaning procedure in order to reflect that the validated cleaning process is still effective. Cleaning verification, along with other allergen management activities, strengthens implemented food safety programs and helps to protect consumers.
Still Have Questions about FSMA Preventive Controls?
In September 2015, the FSMA Preventive Controls for Human Food Rule was published, requiring affected companies to comply with all FDA timelines. The last of these deadlines required that all very small businesses (less than $1 million per year) be in compliance with the FSMA rule by September 17, 2018.
With most companies having implemented FSMA preventive controls at this point, what have we learned? What’s still not clear? What major challenges remain? This article shares some questions that could help more companies on their journey to FSMA compliance.
What Is the Preventive Controls (PC) for Human Food Rule?
In plain language, under FSMA’s preventive controls for human food, FDA asks companies to identify any known and foreseeable potential hazards to finished products, and then apply control measures to prevent those hazards from happening and to ensure companies produce safe products. This rule changes the mentality from reactive to proactive.
Let’s break the term preventive control apart:
- What are we preventing? We are preventing any potential hazards that could occur. FDA identified four major categories of hazards. Food companies must look at their production processes and identify any foreseeable hazards within these categories:
- Physical
- Chemical
- Biological
- Intentional adulteration for economic gain
- What are we controlling? We are controlling the risks from all those hazards identified. Control measures should be identified for each risk from a particular hazard identified so they can be effectively applied.
Melody Ge will close out the 2018 Food Safety Consortium with the Plenary Session, “What Have We Learned After FSMA Implementation?” | November 15Where Do We Start?
A logical starting point involves understanding all hazards at your production facility. How can you ensure all hazards are assessed and evaluated? Consider mapping out the process line as one effective way. It is important to thoroughly understand your processes, as well as all raw materials, equipment, and personnel associated with each processing step. The more details gathered at the beginning, the easier it is to understand the hazards and risks as a foundation. A hazard can always be eliminated later if it is not applicable nor likely to occur.
Are All Control Measure or PRPs Considered Preventive Controls?
The short answer is not necessarily. Only those associated with a potential hazard will be considered a preventive control. For example, for an approved supplier program controlling incoming goods and suppliers, if an allergen is identified as a potential foreseeable hazard, the approved supplier program at the receiving step will be identified as a preventive control. Once a preventive control is determined, it must be evaluated to ensure it is proper and applicable to control and minimize the risks (117.420).
The same mentality should be applied for other control measures. Is there is a hazard and, if so, can this control measure actually control the risk? Once preventive controls are determined and identified, monitoring and validation are the next steps to ensure preventive controls are functioning effectively to control the risks as expected. If not, proper corrective actions should be identified.
Are Corrective Actions Always Required?
Not always—it depends! It is important to remember the intent of FSMA’s preventive controls, which is to prevent any potential hazards and control the risks to ensure safe products are produced. Per 117. 150, corrective action is a must when:
- There is a potential pathogen threat in RTE products
- There is a potential pathogen threat from the environmental monitoring program
- A preventive control is not properly implemented and a corrective action procedure has not been established
- A preventive control(s) or the food safety plan as a whole is not effective
- Records are not completed after review
Other than the above-mentioned, corrections can be applied to address minor and isolated problems in a timely manner. As with all other food safety management systems (FSMS), once a corrective action is determined and implemented, a verification of its effectiveness shall be conducted. In addition, everything should be documented, as records are a vital component of the preventive control rule.
The FSMA Preventive Controls Rule is not scary. It is simply a series of requirements to assist the industry in proactively identifying the best control measure for operations. Foreseeable hazards must be controlled. As with all other management systems, knowledgeable and experienced personnel can help develop a valid food safety plan, including preventive controls, and ensure it is effectively implemented and maintained onsite.
“Natural Flavor” Claims
The company that produces the very popular flavored sparkling water brand LaCroix is facing a class action lawsuit that alleges false claims of the product being “all natural.” The suit alleges that certain flavor chemicals used in the beverage are, in fact, artificial ingredients. These flavor chemicals include limonene, linalyl propionate (linalool propionate), linalool and ethyl butyrate (ethyl butanoate). While these flavor chemicals can be synthesized, they are naturally occurring chemical constituents and can therefore be derived from natural sources.
The safety of the beverages is not at issue; this is a labeling question. The suit states that linalool is “used in cockroach insecticide,” which is inflammatory and misleading. Chemical compounds, including those used as food ingredients, naturally have multiple applications and this does not have any bearing on the question of whether they are safe to use in foods.
Presumably, the labeling issue of whether these flavor chemicals were naturally or synthetically derived will be addressed as the suit progresses. This suit does, however, highlight some of the challenges we have in tracking food fraud information related to flavors.
Flavors are big business. Appealing flavors enabled LaCroix to make unsweetened sparkling water explode in popularity. If you have been on the Institute of Food Technologists Annual Meeting expo floor, you have seen the prominent displays and creative food samples offered up by the big flavor houses. It is a competitive business and very proprietary. The FDA labeling requirements for flavors allow them to be listed generally as “spice,” “natural flavor,” or “artificial flavor” (or a combination of those). This makes tracking and standardizing public records of food fraud related to flavors challenging.
Our data includes more than 60 of food fraud related to flavors represented as “natural.” Most of these records are linked to vanilla extract or various essential oils. However, we have also captured a handful of records that address misrepresentation of synthetic flavor chemicals as naturally-derived. This includes records for linalool and ethyl butyrate, among others such as vanillin and linalyl acetate. However, none of these records describe publicly reported incidents of fraud for naturally-derived flavor chemicals. The records are based on peer-reviewed publications aimed at method development for authentication of natural flavors.
Added value claims such as “natural” tend to increase food fraud risk because the costs of production can be so much higher. While an ingredient like vanilla extract is certainly one example of this, we do not tend to see the same level of evidence of food fraud potential for naturally-derived flavor chemicals in public records. When our users need to conduct a food fraud vulnerability assessment for a natural flavor that is a proprietary blend of flavor chemicals, we suggest that they incorporate information from the entire natural flavors group into their assessment. Given the proprietary nature of flavor blends and FDA labeling requirements, it is not feasible for us to track every individual flavor blend in our database.
Fortunately, given the importance of flavors to the food industry, flavor companies have a vested interest in preserving their client relationships and public reputation by ensuring flavors labeled as “natural” qualify for that label claim.
Resources
- The Decernis Food Fraud Database is a continuously updated collection of food fraud records curated specifically to support vulnerability assessments. Information is gathered from the scientific literature, regulatory reports, media publications, judicial records, and trade associations from around the world and is searchable by ingredient, adulterant, country, and hazard classification.
—Update— February 19, 2020: National Beverage Corp.announced dismissal of “all of the allegations contained in a prior lawsuit which challenged LaCroix’s natural ingredient labeling.” –END Update–
Stored Product Insects Are Costly Consumers
How much can pest issues cost? The truth is, it changes based on the pest, the size of the population and the prevalence throughout your food processing facility and products. If you want to protect your bottom line, you need to know which pests are the biggest threat and take steps to prevent them. Let’s focus on one major threat to food processing facilities: Stored product insects.
Believed by some pest control providers to be the costliest pests for food manufacturing and processing businesses, stored product insects can put a huge dent in your profits. What’s worse, these pests can be tough to discover by an untrained eye, and they’re incredibly difficult to control without the help of a pest management professional.
According to the USDA and the University of Wisconsin, “stored product pests can damage, contaminate, or consume as much as 10% of the total food produced in the U.S. alone, while in developing countries that rate has been estimated at 50% or more.”
That’s an astronomical figure for such small insects! Can you imagine the impact on your bottom line if 10% of your product was ruined?
For any business in need of an updated prevention plan, the first step is to review the current integrated pest management (IPM) program to ensure a proactive approach has been implemented to monitor for, and react quickly to, any pest issues around the facility. There’s no one-size-fits-all strategy for an IPM program; each program should be customized to meet the needs of the individual business. Different geography, construction and food products being produced can all create different pest pressures.
According to another study conducted by CEBR on the impact of pests on the global food supply, disruptions caused by pest infestations resulted in $9.6 billion in operating costs in the countries surveyed and 84% of U.S. businesses reported a net impact on revenue due to pest infestation across a five-year period. Diving deeper, 28% of food manufacturers and processors reported pest-related costs associated with contamination of raw materials leading to replacement costs.
In other words, having stored product insects around is expensive. If there were ever any doubts about the value of a proactive IPM program, these statistics prove it. So, let’s take a closer look at how you can work to protect your business against stored product insect—some of the most likely and costly invaders.
Types of Stored Product Insects
The term stored product insect covers a range of insect species that can be broken up into three main subcategories: External feeders, internal developers and secondary feeders. Each category has its own distinct characteristics, which are important to know for detection and proper identification.
External Feeders
This group develops on the outside of products, including damaged grains and processed foods. As they feed, they damage product and leave behind frass (insect droppings) as they make their way through.
Some of the most common external feeders include Indian meal moths and flour beetles.
Adult Indian meal moths are roughly 9 mm long and have a wingspan of 14–20 mm. The front wings on the adults are bicolored, with two main tones: Reddish-brown at the wing tip and silver-grey at the base. If you don’t see the pest itself, you may notice a messy silk webbing spun by the larvae.
Red and confused flour beetles, two of the most common beetle species, are 3–4 mm in length and also have a reddish-brown color. They’re rectangular-shaped beetles and can often be found in grain bins infested with internal developers. This is because flour beetles like to feed on the kernels other stored product insects, like borers, have already broken up. They can also be found in processing lines and finished products.
Internal Feeders
Internal feeders lay eggs inside or outside of kernels of grain but develop entirely inside those kernels. As they develop, they hollow out the kernel, then the adults can go on to damage other kernels.
Some of the most commonly encountered internal developers are lesser grain borers and rice, maize and granary weevils. Weevils measure about 5 mm in length and are usually brown in color with a distinct elongated “snout.” Lesser grain borers, the most common internal feeder across the United States infesting wheat, are a bit smaller and don’t have the snout that weevils do. Both weevils and lesser grain borers have pitted patterns on their bodies, and all can fly except the granary weevil. As the larvae and pupae develop inside grain kernels, damage becomes especially evident when the adult chews out and leaves a distinctive perfectly round hole.
Secondary Feeders
This group typically eats from the outside in and feeds on the mold and fungus that can grow on out-of-condition grain and damp product.
Two of the most common secondary feeders are the foreign grain beetle and sawtoothed grain beetle. Foreign grain beetles love mold, and resemble flour beetles in size and color. To tell them apart, look for two “bumps” on the top corners of the thorax. Eliminating molds and damp conditions that facilitate mold growth is generally enough to help prevent infestations from secondary feeders.
Sawtoothed grain beetles can feed on many types of products and while they can’t physically penetrate packaging, the adults will find holes less than 1 mm in diameter, lay eggs, and the larvae will squeeze through the tiny openings to get to the product. They prefer processed food products like bran, chocolate, oatmeal and even pet foods, but will feed on whatever they can access. Sawtoothed grain beetles are smaller than flour beetles (3 mm) and have distinctive “teeth” on the margins of the thorax.
Prevention, Monitoring & Detection, and Removal
The best way to protect a facility from stored product insects is to employ numerous different tactics. Specifically, it’s important to proactively mitigate pest attractants, monitor for activity in key areas around the facility, and establish thresholds and action plans when pests are detected.
First and foremost, educate all employees about the pests most common around your facility and what to do should they spot one. Your pest sighting log is a great tool, but only if people use it! Have a clear escalation plan for any pest issues spotted. In addition, create a sanitation schedule to ensure all areas and equipment are cleaned to remove food and moisture buildup attractive to pests on a regular basis. While you can’t possibly eliminate all food (you are of course storing and processing food!), the aim is to minimize the amount and the access these insects have to that food source.
Next, make sure all incoming shipments and packages are inspected closely in a sealed off unloading area away from other products. Make sure employees know to check for signs of damage, especially holes caused by boring pests. Taking the time to inspect anything entering your facility in this way will give you a chance to spot pests before they have the chance to spread to your other products. Use the first-in, first-out (FIFO) approach for all goods to ensure older product doesn’t sit. The longer product sits, the more chance it can be infested and it may start deteriorating, and this is especially attractive to stored product insects.
For ongoing monitoring, talk to a pest management professional about deploying pheromone traps strategically around your facility. Pheromone traps are the best tool to monitor for stored product insects, as they will give you an idea of which pests are present, in what numbers, where they are, and they can help you track trends in pest activity over time. If any stored product insects are ever spotted, contact your pest management professional immediately. If there’s a chance of having stored product insects on your product, you absolutely should have pheromone trap monitoring in place.
The Total Cost of Stored Product Pest Problems
The impact of pest issues caused by stored product insects isn’t limited to the cost of paused operations and replacing contaminated product. These pests are tough to spot, and could be passed along to partners further down the supply chain. Naturally this could hurt the trust between supply chain partners, which is never a good thing!
If your facility gets a reputation of having problems with stored product insects, it’s going to hurt your brand—and that’s going to be another knock to your bottom line. Stored product insects can spread quickly between products placed closely together. So, if pests are mistakenly shipped to a partner’s facility or a store and then on to a customer, now THEY are going to have to deal with stored product insects, too. Being proactive is the best approach, and careful documentation can help you and your supply chain partners track pest issues to the source so they can be resolved quickly and minimize the impact on profits.
It becomes easy to see stored product insects can cause both short-term and long-term effects on the profitability of a business. Don’t let that be your facility and your reputation! Be proactive and partner with a pest management provider to help ensure your facility operations run smoothly and your customers stay happy.
